Trump rips into 'too late' Jerome Powell after Fed holds rates steady
President Donald Trump ripped into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell on Thursday, calling him "destructive," after the central bank kept interest rates steady on Wednesday.
Trump said "Too Late" Powell is costing the United States "hundreds of billions of dollars" by not cutting rates, leveling a familiar criticism against the Fed chair who has repeatedly ignored Trump's pressure campaign to cut rates.
"We should be 2.5 Points lower, and save $BILLIONS on all of Biden's Short Term Debt," Trump wrote Thursday on Truth Social.
Trump also criticized Powell late Wednesday, calling him a "real dummy" in a near-midnight Truth Social post.
Powell, whose term ends in May of 2026, said Wednesday that, "for the time being, we are well positioned to wait to learn more about the likely course of the economy before considering any adjustments to our policies."
Trump's remarks were in response to the Federal Open Market Committee keeping its borrowing rate targeted in a range between 4.25%-4.5%, which is on par with where it's been since December.
The criticisms were not surprising, as the president has long slammed Powell for not lowering interest rates.
As recently as Wednesday morning, hours before the Fed was set to release its decision on interest rates, Trump said: "So we have a stupid person. Frankly, you probably won't cut today."
"Europe had 10 cuts, and we had none. And I guess he's a political guy, I don't know. He's a political guy who's not a smart person, but he's costing the country a fortune," he said outside the White House.
Trump even mused about appointing himself to lead the Federal Reserve, saying, "I'd do a much better job than these people."
Trump has said that he intends to announce his pick for the next chair of the Federal Reserve "very soon."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
17 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump may authorize strikes against Iran. Can he just do that?
The question being projected by the White House as President Donald Trump mulls an offensive strike against Iran is: Will he or won't he? It has blown right by something that should come earlier in the process, but hasn't gotten much attention: Can he? Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle — but mostly Democrats at this point — have proposals to limit Trump's ability to simply launch strikes against Iran. 'We shouldn't go to war without a vote of Congress,' Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, told CNN's Jake Tapper on 'The Lead' Wednesday. Kaine has been trying for more than a decade to repeal the post-9/11 authorization for the use of military force that presidents from both parties have leaned on to launch military strikes. The strictest reading of the Constitution suggests Trump, or any president, should go to Congress to declare war before attacking another country. But Congress hasn't technically declared war since World War II and the US has been involved in a quite a few conflicts in the intervening generations. Presidents from both parties have argued they don't need congressional approval to launch military strikes. But longer-scale wars have been authorized through a series of joint resolutions, including the 2001 authorization for the use of military force against any country, person or group associated with the 9/11 terror attacks or future attacks. There's no indication Iran was involved with 9/11, so it would be a stretch to argue that vote, taken nearly a quarter of a century ago, would justify a strike against Iran today. But that vote has been used to justify scores of US military actions in at least 15 countries across the world. The Trump administration has said recent assessments by US intelligence agencies from earlier this year that Iran is not close to a nuclear weapon are outdated and that Iran's close proximity to developing a nuclear weapon justifies a quicker effort to denude its capability, perhaps with US bunker-busting bombs. Israel apparently lacks the ability to penetrate Iran's Fordow nuclear site, which is buried in a mountain. Prev Next Kaine, on the other hand, wants to hear more, and requiring a vote in Congress would force Trump to justify an attack. 'The last thing we need is to be buffaloed into a war in the Middle East based on facts that prove not to be true,' Kaine said. 'We've been down that path to great cost, and I deeply worry that it may happen again.' In 1973, responding to the disastrous war in Vietnam, Congress overrode President Richard Nixon's veto to pass an important piece of legislation, the War Powers Resolution, that sought to rein in presidents regarding the use of military force. The War Powers Resolution seeks to limit the president's ability to deploy the military to three types of situations: a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. An effort to end Iran's nuclear program would not seem to fall into any of those buckets, but Trump has plenty of lawyers at the Department of Justice and the Pentagon who will find a way to justify his actions. The law also requires Trump to 'consult' with Congress, but that could be interpreted in multiple ways. The law does clearly require the president to issue a report to Congress within 48 hours of using military force. It also seeks to limit the time he has to use force before asking Congress for permission. The Reiss Center at New York University has a database of more than 100 such reports presidents from both parties have sent to Congress over the past half-century after calling up the US military. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, cite the War Powers Resolution in their proposal to bar Trump from using the US military against Iran without congressional approval or to respond to an attack. 'This is not our war,' Massie said in a post on X. 'Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.' Nixon clearly disagreed with the War Powers Resolution, and subsequent presidents from both parties have also questioned it. For instance, when Trump ordered the killing of a top Iranian general who was visiting Iraq in 2020, lawyers for the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, in what we know from a heavily redacted legal opinion, argued the president inherently had authority to order the strike under the Constitution if he determined that doing so was in the national interest. A similar memo sought to justifying US airstrikes in Syria during Trump's first term. That 'national interest' test is all but a blank check, which seems on its face to be inconsistent with the idea in the Constitution that Congress is supposed to declare war, as the former government lawyers and law professors Jack Goldsmith and Curtis Bradley argue at Lawfare. The OLC memo that justified the killing of the Iranian general suggests Congress can control the president by cutting off funding for operations and also that the president must seek congressional approval before 'the kind of protracted conflict that would rise to the level of war.' Presidents have frequently carried out air strikes, rather than the commitment of ground forces, without congressional approval. The OLC memo that justified the strike against the Iranian general in Iraq also argued Trump could rely on a 2002 vote by which Congress authorized the use of military force in Iraq. That 2002 authorization for use of military force (AUMF) was actually repealed in 2023, with help from then-Sen. JD Vance. OLC memos have tried to define war as 'prolonged and substantial military engagements, typically involving exposure of U.S. military personnel to significant risk over a substantial period.' Air strikes, one could imagine OLC lawyers arguing, would not rise to that level. What is a war? What are hostilities? These seem like semantic debates, but they complicate any effort to curtail presidential authority, as Brian Egan and Tess Bridgeman, both former national security lawyers for the government, argued in trying to explain the law at Just Security. The most effective way to stop a president would be for Congress to cut off funds, something it clearly can do. But that is very unlikely in the current climate, when Republicans control both the House and the Senate.
Washington Post
22 minutes ago
- Washington Post
It's time for sports to take a stand against Trump's excesses
Several hours before President Trump's vainglorious military parade, officially called the 250th Army Birthday Parade and Festival — paid for in part by the NFL — rolled past the National Mall last Saturday, a protest against what many of us see as the diminution of the Constitution was underway a few miles away at Logan Circle. And just as I visited there, Jim Keady was introduced.
Fox News
26 minutes ago
- Fox News
Kurilla warfare: Meet the general leading US military forces in the Middle East amid Iran conflict
Army Gen. Michael "Erik" Kurilla is no stranger to conflict, especially in the Middle East. Two decades ago as a lieutenant colonel, he was at the front lines of combat fighting off insurgents in Mosul, Iraq, while leading the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment. The battalion's mission was to conduct security patrols and coordinate offensive attacks against anti-Iraqi insurgents targeting Iraqi security forces and Iraqi police stations. During Kurilla's tenure leading the battalion, more than 150 soldiers earned the Purple Heart for injuries, and the battalion lost at least a dozen soldiers, The New York Times reported in August 2005. "There will always be somebody willing (to) pick up an AK-47 and shoot Americans," Kurilla told The New York Times in August 2005. Kurilla did not complete that deployment unscathed. Later, in August 2005, Kurilla found himself caught in a Mosul, Iraq, firefight, where he sustained multiple gunshot wounds, earning him a Bronze Star with valor and one of his two Purple Heart awards. Now, Kurilla is facing another battle as the commander of U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM, serving as the top military officer overseeing U.S. military forces based in the Middle East. That means Kurilla, who attended the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, is at the forefront of military operations as President Donald Trump contemplates whether to engage in military strikes against Iran's nuclear sites. CENTCOM is one of the U.S. military's 11 combatant commands and encompasses 21 nations in the Middle East in its area of operations, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Those familiar with Kurilla claim he's the perfect person for the job. Retired Army Gen. Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described Kurilla as the ideal leader for CENTCOM in 2022 when Biden nominated Kurilla for the role. "If there ever was some way to feed into a machine the requirements for the perfect leader of CENTCOM — the character traits, the attributes, the experiences, the knowledge and the personality that would be ideal — that machine would spit out Erik Kurilla," Milley said in 2022, according to the Defense Department. "Erik's got vast experience in combat (and) on staffs. "He's a visionary, he's a thinker and he's a doer," Milley said. "He understands both the physical and human terrain and is able to identify root causes of problems and develop systems. He's not at all a linear thinker. He's actually a very gifted problem-solver." Retired Marine Corps Gen. Frank McKenzie, Kurilla's CENTCOM predecessor, voiced similar sentiments. "I can't think of anybody better qualified to lead CENTCOM's next chapter than Erik Kurilla," McKenzie said in 2022, according to the Pentagon. "He's no stranger to the CENTCOM (area of operations). He's no stranger to the headquarters." Notable figures who've previously filled the job leading CENTCOM include former defense secretaries, retired Gen. Jim Mattis, who served during Trump's first term, and retired Gen. Lloyd Austin, who served during former President Joe Biden's administration. Fox News Digital reached out to CENTCOM, the Department of Defense, McKenzie and Milley for comment and did not get a response by the time of publication. The region is familiar territory for Kurilla. The general spent a decade between 2004 and 2014 overseeing conventional and special operations forces during consecutive tours in the Middle East that fell under the CENTCOM purview. Additionally, Kurilla has served in key CENTCOM staff and leadership positions, including serving as the command's chief of staff from August 2018 to September 2019. Prior to leading CENTCOM, the general also commanded the 2nd Ranger Battalion, the 75th Ranger Regiment, the 82nd Airborne Division and the XVIII Airborne Corps, according to his official bio. In addition to deploying to Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Inherent Resolve, he deployed to Afghanistan with Operation Enduring Freedom. Other awards he's earned include the Combat Infantryman Badge, awarded to Army infantry or special forces officers who've encountered active ground combat. Kurilla, who the Senate confirmed to lead CENTCOM in February 2022 and will exit the role later in 2025, told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee June 10 that, since October 2023, when Hamas first attacked Israel, American service members have faced increased threats in the region. Specifically, he said, U.S. troops have come under direct fire by nearly 400 unmanned aerial systems, 350 rockets, 50 ballistic missiles and 30 cruise missiles launched by Iranian-backed groups. He said CENTCOM has encountered the "most highly kinetic period than at any other time in the past decade." "We have been at the brink of regional war several times with the first state-on-state attacks between Iran and Israel in their history," Kurilla told lawmakers. "In the Red Sea, Houthi attempts to kill Americans operating in the Red Sea necessitated an aggressive response to protect our sailors and mariners and restore freedom of navigation. This is while Tehran is continuing to progress towards a nuclear weapons program — threatening catastrophic ramifications across the region and beyond." As a result, Kurilla said CENTCOM is prepared to use military force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state. Kurilla said he has provided Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth a host of options to employ to eliminate the threat of a nuclear Iran. Since Kurilla's testimony, tensions have escalated even further in the Middle East after Israel kicked off massive airstrikes against Iran's nuclear sites that Israel claims have killed several high-ranking military leaders. Likewise, Iran also launched strikes against Israel as the two ramp up military campaigns against one another. Trump is still navigating whether the U.S. will conduct direct strikes against Iran. Trump told reporters he may order strikes targeting Iranian nuclear sites and that the "next week is going to be very big." "Yes, I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do," Trump said. "I can tell you this, that Iran's got a lot of trouble, and they want to negotiate."
